I have one (a 155 sq ft) and my rigger had not come across one before. I am thinking about changing it for a PD Optimum because of the good name of PD and no other reason.

Can anyone with experience of the Techno comment on whether I should do this. I do not want to get into pack volume issues etc. Just want to know from a purely safety aspect about openings and flight/landing characteristics etc.

If it flies like a PD Reserve or a Smart, I probably won't bother, but if it turns out to have a reputation like a Raven then I don't want my first reserve ride to be under such a canopy.

I have had a few rides under them, they fly and flare better than a PD-R IMO (haven't jumped an Optimum yet), although I liked the Smart best out of the 3. These 3 reserves are the only ones I want to jump, especially at smaller sizes/higher wingloadings. The Techno is a quite good reserve, however I'm not sure it's a good idea for an American jumper to be flying one, as I thought they were not TSO'd for the US market or something, but if your rigger says it's ok in that regard there's absolutely no reason to replace it IMO, even though it's French

the techno is a great reserve canopy. Flies great, opens as good as any other, and it does support some higher wingloadings. My only ride was with a 115 loaded around 1.6. It was my 1st reserve ride. Landed where I wanted, and more or less how I wanted (hadn't taken into account the "longer" toggle stroke you have on reserves)

I am unaware of TSO's etc so it is possible that you could not have it in a US container. Riggers could help you best

I have two rides with a techno 128 with a WL of 1.6 and one ride on a brand new PDR 143 with WL of 1.4 . Both are good reserves, but I liked better the techno landing/flying performance. Not to mention they pack one size smaller than PDR. Most of French parachutes are manufactured at the Mauritios Islands with high standards material and personal, first quality products. PD is on Honduras as well. safe jumps

I photographed the warning label when it was open and it did say "TSO C23c". Is this not a US approved TSO standard?

When someone makes an application for a TSO-authorization, the letter that they will get back from the FAA says, in effect along with some other wordage, that you can now mark the product in accordance with the TSO standard.

Given that, if this canopy is marked 'TSO C23(c)' then it is approved under the TSO or it is illegally marked.

Just my two cents from over 30 yrs of dealing with the FAA on this issue.

I just relooked at the photo I took (and it is a little grainy), but I now think it says TSO C23d, which I believe is a higher rating. This also agrees with what the manual says on the front cover.

I now believe that the Techno is actually rated higher than the PD-126R and larger which are shown as TSO C23c(b) (except the PD-281R for some reason which is C23d). Smaller sizes are of the PD-R are shown as C23d, as are all sizes of Optimum (albeit that the 160 and up are not yet approved I believe).

Getting slightly off-topic now, but this is something I don't fully understand and it is pretty interesting to know exactly what your last resort is approved to do.

I suggest you read the final part of its manual, although there are boxes to write to the warning label that also has the obligation of reserve canopy check permeability in following cases: after 40 repack, 25 jump or dive into the water. And also you can not replace Maillon Rapide with soft links, Parachutes de France does not approve SkymiK

Technically the Techno has a far lower rating than the PD reserve, even if they are likely similar in strength.

The reason for the middle of the range PD's being C23c, with the biggest and smallest being C23d is because C23c was what was available when PD designed those canopies. They designed them for a certified 254 lbs and 150 kts, and that was the maximum possible under the rules.

When they later built the 281 and the 113 and smaller, by then C23d existed and allowed going bigger or smaller on weights. So the 281 is certified to 300 lbs, and the PD113 to only 220 lbs.

Meanwhile the Techno was certified under the European Joint (or JAA) TSO program, under the JTSO C23d. I don't know the details of how a JTSO is accepted as a TSO, although the underlying test requirements are the same. (Would be interesting to learn.)

The Techno's manual actually shows that the Techno 98 is not JTSO C23d certified, but only to the French 530 EQ-03 standard (which may be higher or lower in requirements). Nor is the 140 size, for some reason. (Did they simply not have time to get it by the time that my manual was printed?)

Both the PD and Techno are certified to 150 kts, and speed is more important in the force equation than is weight.

The big thing is that the Techno's manual restricts the weight to their own chosen loading less than they could have asked for, given the speed & weight tests they did.

You can jump a PD 126 in the USA to 254 lbs even if PD RECOMMENDS a lot lower.

But the Techno 128 (as a comparison) is only certified to 163 lbs. (Or the 140 is only good for 198lbs).

These correspond to limits of 1.27 or 1.41 wing loadings.

For the TSO's, speed and weight tests have to be at levels 20% higher than the maximum levels that you choose to certify at. Based on PdF's documentation, they tested as if they were planning to certify to 250 lbs, 150 kts. That's very close to what PD did for most of its range. But PdF chose to put much lower limits in the manual.

So the Techno is technically certified to much lower limits than the PD -- even if the strength tests withstood will have been very similar.

Meanwhile the Techno was certified under the European Joint (or JAA) TSO program, under the JTSO C23d. I don't know the details of how a JTSO is accepted as a TSO, although the underlying test requirements are the same. (Would be interesting to learn.)

The process is simple, because technical specs are the same (AS8015/B). As soon as you get your J or E-Tso-C23d you send all paperwork application to your local NAA. Then they get in touch with the FAA to obtain the TSO-C23d approval. Then you wait several months to get it.

Interesting indeed. I did gloss over / miss that! (I believe edition 5 is still current.) Only the 155 and up are shown to have the actual US TSO, while some others have the JTSO. Seems they got the US TSO on some without doing the JTSO.

Everyone can see for themself -- I attached a copy of part of the table.

So it is a little deceptive that they mentioned the FAA TSO on the cover of their manual when it applies only to a few of the range.

So going back to the original post: The 155 Techno does have an actual US TSO.